JUDGMENT : SATYEN VAIDYA, J. 1. By way of instant appeal, appellant has assailed the judgment and sentence dated 29.5.2019/6.7.2019, passed by learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharmshala, in Sessions Case No. S.C. No. 47-G/VII/16, RBT No. 61-G/VII/17/16, whereby appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short the “POCSO Act”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year in default of payment of fine. In addition, the victim has also been awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- to be paid by the appellant. 2. The case as set up by prosecution was that on 26.7.2016, Anjana Devi (PW-1) (hereafter referred to as complainant) reported a crime at Police Post, Ranital vide daily dairy No. 11 (Ext.PW-12/A), alleging inter-alia that the victim was her daughter. On 25.7.2016, the mother of complainant had paid a visit to the house of complainant. At about 2.00 P.M. she in the company of the victim and Nishant (son of complainant) went towards the bus-stop. Both the children (victim and her brother) reached back home at about 4.15 P.M. The victim was weeping and on inquiry by complainant, she disclosed that the appellant had also accompanied them till the bus-stop. On their way-back appellant had caught hold of her and dragged her towards water source downwards from the road and had further gagged her mouth at place near “Dhuri-ka-Nalla.” Appellant had then undressed her and had thereafter indulged in “Galat Kaam” with her. Nishant had pelted stones at the appellant. Despite her resistance; appellant had not budged. On this disclosure, the complainant had gone in search of appellant but he did not respond and absconded from his house. Appellant had raped her minor daughter. She could not lodge the report the previous day, as firstly she remained searching for the appellant and thereafter remained busy in a function of her nephew and also kept searching for the President of the Gram Panchayat. 3. On the basis of aforesaid report, FIR Ext.PW-18/A was registered at Police Station, Haripur and investigation was initiated. Statement of victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in the first instance. 3. On the basis of aforesaid report, FIR Ext.PW-18/A was registered at Police Station, Haripur and investigation was initiated. Statement of victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in the first instance. Later, on 29.7.2016 her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ext.PW-2/A) was also recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate at Dehra. The victim was medically examined on 26.7.2016 at CHC Jwalamukhi. PW-7 Dr. Kanika examined the victim and issued MLC Ext.PW-7/B. Relevant extract of MLC read as under: “On external examination: multiple bruises (reddish blue) in colour present on both the breast.” Internal examination: no injuries present on the perineal region. On separation of thighs no abrasion present at time of examination. No bleeding P/V present.” Per speculum: hymen torn, the redness present at vaginal opening.” Final opinion was rendered by PW-7 on 19.10.2016 as under: “However, the possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out.” 4. During investigation, the date of birth of victim was found as 10.4.2005. The appellant, who had absconded, was arrested on 4.8.2016. The report from Regional Forensic Laboratory, Dharmshala, Ext.PY was received. On completion of investigation report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. 5. Learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharmshala framed charge against the accused under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, to which appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. Prosecution examined total 20 witnesses to prove its case. Appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He raised the defence of false implication on account of enmity with the complainant. Appellant did not lead any defence evidence. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also examined the record carefully. 8. The fact that the victim was less than 12 years of age was duly proved on record. Birth certificate of victim, Ext.PW-8/B, was proved on record by PW-8, Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Dhar. As per birth certificate Ext.PW-8/B, date of birth of victim was 10.4.2005. This fact remained un-rebutted. 9. The victim was examined as a witness (PW-2) before learned Special Judge. She categorically deposed that on 25.7.2016 at about 3.00 P.M. she accompanied by her brother Nishant (PW-3) and appellant had gone to see-off her ‘Nani’ till bus stand at place known as “Behri.” On their way back, near ‘Tundia Nallah’ appellant had caught her hold. 9. The victim was examined as a witness (PW-2) before learned Special Judge. She categorically deposed that on 25.7.2016 at about 3.00 P.M. she accompanied by her brother Nishant (PW-3) and appellant had gone to see-off her ‘Nani’ till bus stand at place known as “Behri.” On their way back, near ‘Tundia Nallah’ appellant had caught her hold. She sat down but the appellant slapped her and carried her to the “Nallah.” PW-3 Nishant was instructed to keep standing there. PW-3 Nishant pelted stones at the appellant but the appellant slapped him. Appellant undressed the victim and committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter left towards the water source. As per this witness, victim along with her brother (PW-3) came back to their house. She disclosed this occurrence to her sister Aarti and the complainant. Thereafter the complainant had left for the house of aunt of victim, where birthday celebrations were going on. Appellant was found there and was given beatings by the complainant. Report was lodged at Police Post, Ranital. Victim was medically examined and her statement was also got recorded before Judicial Magistrate at Dehra. Police had also made inquiries from her and had also recorded her statement. Police had taken her to the spot, where the incident had taken place. The spot was photographed. Further she identified the appellant present in the Court to be the same person, who had committed sexual intercourse with her. In cross-examination, she admitted that the appellant and his family members were not on talking terms with the complainant and other family members. She also admitted that there was a quarrel between the complainant and Rakesh Kumar, brother of the appellant. She, however, denied that her mother had vowed to teach the appellant a lesson. Injuries found on the person of victim were suggested to be the result of fall, which was specifically denied by PW-2. 10. Statement of PW-2 was corroborated, on material particulars, by her brother, Nishant, (PW-3). He categorically stated that after seeing off his ‘Nani’ he along with victim and appellant were returning back. Near “Dhuri-ka-Nallah” appellant lifted the victim and took her towards water source. He had thrown stones at the appellant. Appellant slapped him and pressed his neck. The appellant had undressed the victim. On their return, victim disclosed the matter to the complainant. He categorically stated that after seeing off his ‘Nani’ he along with victim and appellant were returning back. Near “Dhuri-ka-Nallah” appellant lifted the victim and took her towards water source. He had thrown stones at the appellant. Appellant slapped him and pressed his neck. The appellant had undressed the victim. On their return, victim disclosed the matter to the complainant. He also identified the appellant present in the Court to be the same person, who had lifted his sister. In cross-examination, this witness maintained his version, as given in the examination-in-chief. He denied that he had made the statement as per the version of his mother. 11. Further, the version of victim found corroboration from statement of complainant as PW-2. This witness also narrated the same story that the victim along with her brother Nishant (PW-3) had left the house to see off their ‘Nani’ till bus stop. Appellant had also accompanied them. On return, at about 4.00 P.M. victim started weeping and disclosed the misdeed of the appellant. Complainant found appellant present in the house of her sister-in-law, where celebrations of birthday were going on. On being confronted, appellant denied the allegations. Since the complainant was in anger, as such, she gave beatings to appellant with a ‘Danda’ (Stick) which she was holding in her hands. Younger sister of complainant named Salochna was married to the brother of appellant. She was also informed about the wrong act committed by the appellant with the victim. Thereafter she informed the mother of appellant telephonically and complained to her about the conduct of appellant. As per this witness, her sister subsequently had disclosed that the appellant had come home and had left after changing the clothes. The appellant remained underground from 25.7.2016 to 4.8.2016 on which date, he was arrested. The matter was reported to ‘Pradhan’ and ‘Up-Pradhan’ of the Panchayat and they were requested to accompany her to Police Station, Ranital and in such circumstances, the report Ext.PW-18/B was lodged, culminating in FIR Ext.PW-18/A. The victim was medically examined. The police had visited the spot of occurrence. The statement of victim was recorded before Judicial Magistrate, Dehra. In cross-examination, she admitted that she had not seen appellant accompanying her mother. She also admitted that there was some case between her and the brother of the appellant in the Panchayat. The police had visited the spot of occurrence. The statement of victim was recorded before Judicial Magistrate, Dehra. In cross-examination, she admitted that she had not seen appellant accompanying her mother. She also admitted that there was some case between her and the brother of the appellant in the Panchayat. Though, PW-1 tried to explain that the case was subsequent in time to the lodging of the report Ext.PW-18/B, however, she subsequently clarified that it was a separate case. It was suggested to this witness that victim had suffered injuries due to fall, which was denied by her. She specifically denied that she had falsely implicated the appellant due to enmity. 12. PW-2 was unequivocal in her version while narrating the entire incident before the Court. Similarly, PW-3, who was only about 8 years of age, had remained unshaken in his testimony while corroborating the version of PW-2. The victim had disclosed the entire misdeed of appellant to her elder sister and the complainant at the earliest. It was also not unnatural for the mother to confront the appellant immediately. Her conduct of having tried to contact the ‘Pradhan’ and ‘Up-Pradhan’ also cannot be said to be unnatural. The victim had reached back home at about 4.00 P.M. and it was thereafter that she had disclosed to her mother the entire incident. Naturally, it might have taken some time for the complainant to reconcile. The fact that the husband of complainant was working for gain at some other place and was not at home cannot be lost site. Police Post, Ranital is stated to be at a distance of about 15 KMs from the village of complainant as stated by PW-12 HHC Kuldeep Chand. In these circumstances, the fact that matter was not reported to the police on the same day will not be of much significance. The distressed complainant could not be expected to walk a distance of approximately 15 KMs alone to lodge the report. The report Ext.PW-18/B was lodged at 11.45 A.M. the next morning when the complainant visited Police Post, Ranital in the company of ‘Up- Pradhan’ of the Panchayat and the victim. 13. The appellant raised the defence of his false implication due to enmity. However, he failed to probabilise such defence. PW-2 as well as PW-1 made admissions of some dispute, before the ‘Panchayat’ between complainant and the brother of appellant. 13. The appellant raised the defence of his false implication due to enmity. However, he failed to probabilise such defence. PW-2 as well as PW-1 made admissions of some dispute, before the ‘Panchayat’ between complainant and the brother of appellant. However, the nature, gravity and magnitude of dispute was not brought on record. It cannot be believed that for some trivial dispute that too between the complainant and the brother of appellant, the honour and dignity of victim and entire family would be put at stake. 14. The allegation against the appellant has also been corroborated by the medical evidence. PW-7 had occasion to examine the victim on 26.7.2016. Bruises were found on the breast of victim. The hymen was found torn and redness was found present at the vaginal opening. PW-7 did not rule out the possibility of sexual assault. Her final opinion Ext.PW-7/C has already been noticed in earlier part of this judgment. This witness specifically denied that her findings about sexual assault on the victim were on the basis of application moved by the police. She volunteered that her opinion was based on clinical findings. 15. As noticed earlier, it was suggested to PW-2 and also to PW-1, in their respective cross-examinations that the injuries found on the person of victim were caused by fall. PW-7 in her cross-examination has specifically denied that redness found in vagina of the victim could be due to itching. She, however, admitted that bruises on the breast could be caused due to fall on hard surface. The appellant cannot take benefit from this admission of PW-7 for the simple reason that the injuries suffered by the victim on her breast could be caused by more than one reason and it was nowhere suggested to PW-7 that such injuries could not be caused as a result of sexual assault of the victim. 16. The victim was less than 12 years of age at the time of commission of offence. The terms ‘Galat Kaam’ and ‘sexual intercourse’ used by her against appellant have to be understood in the context of her understanding, which definitely cannot be equated to be that of an adult or atleast a person having reached the age of discretion. The injuries suffered by her have also to be understood in the same context. The terms ‘Galat Kaam’ and ‘sexual intercourse’ used by her against appellant have to be understood in the context of her understanding, which definitely cannot be equated to be that of an adult or atleast a person having reached the age of discretion. The injuries suffered by her have also to be understood in the same context. Section 3 of POCSO Act, 2012 defines penetrative sexual assault in very wide terms and can include various forms of sexual attacks. Since victim was less than 12 years of age, the sexual assault suffered by her became aggravated form of penetrative sexual assault as per Section 5(k) of POCSO Act. 17. PW-4, Nitin Thakur ‘Up-Pradhan’ of ‘Gram Panchayat’ and PW-5 Kishori Lal, ‘Pradhan’ of the ‘Gram Panchayat’ also corroborated the version of the complainant to the extent that they were informed about the incident by her and then the matter was reported to the police. 18. Though, nothing incriminating has been found from the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Ext.P.Y. but that does not absolve the appellant for the reasons that the appellant was arrested on 4.8.2017 and therefore, no incriminating scientific evidence could be collected. 19. Thus, on the analysis of the entire evidence on record, specifically the evidence as discussed above, the offence under section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 has been proved against appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned Special Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence and we are not able to find any infirmity or illegality in the findings and conclusions recorded by the learned Special Judge. 20. In light of the above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and also the sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharmshala in Sessions Case No. S.C. No. 47-G/VII/16, RBT No. 61-G/VII/17/16 are affirmed. Records of learned trial court be sent back forthwith.